Skip to main content

About your Search

20121208
20121208
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
is in transportation, too -- we are mired in conversations about the fiscal cliff. we are talking about long-term infrastructure, a long term energy plan. >> this is the perfect opportunity for the government to work together to achieve a common goal. there is plenty of times when our interest might not call last with the interest of either of the parties. this is the opportunity we have never had before. you could have consumer, business, and the government's all working together to take advantage of this huge resource. for us, it makes so much sense because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 a quilt when natural gas. from the government point of view, everybody is talking about jobs and the fiscal cliff. everyone talks about taxes and what is going to happen with the fiscal cliff. there has been $1500 gone to increase oil prices. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. everybody talks about entitlements. high oil prices make the social security trust insolvent five years sooner than they would if he did not have high oil prices. america needs jobs and gr
, all of this, all of this, is if they go over the fiscal cliff and they don't fix it, and they never fix it, right, the worst case scenario. my question for you. so much talk about taxes for the rich but isn't it true if the sequester goes into effect and isn't fix this will d disproportionately hurt the poor? >> it would because it would be tax increases on middle and working class americans and hard cuts across the board in defense and domestic programs, including education and job training so there's -- >> 700,000 mothers and children will lose nutrition assistance and 80,000 fewer child care subsidies and 14,000 fewer homeless would receive assistance. this is what agencies are preparing for as they do these cuts. >> remember, congress set this up. they set the cliff up in an effort to be responsive, to quote, the need for deficit reduction. they set this deadline. they have the option of pushing the deadline back and continuing to negotiate, but they ought to get together and flex their positions a little bit, and i think they can find common ground, but here's the most importan
cliff. talking a trillion dollars in cuts over ten years. that would mean furloughs for some federal workers, slower hiring, outside contracting, the closer we get to the cliff, the more real it begins to seem. how does that then change the negotiations? >> well, i think it's all part of the political pressure the white house is trying to apply to the congressional republicans. we saw the same thing in '11 when we had the near government shutdown and the dispute over the debt ceiling. the closer we get to the debt line, the white house starts talking act what kind of specific impact this would have. in terms of the fiscal cliff, higher taxes on everybody. one thing that will happen without an agreement, all the bush tax rates go away, so everyone's taxes are going to go up. you'll see that emphasized over the next couple weeks. you'll hear the white house talk about what a bad situation there will be after january 1 if this deal is not cut. >> david jackson, "usa today," shira toeplitz, "roll call." we appreciate your time so much we'll talk to you later in the hour as well. >> thank
. with the countdown to the fiscal cliff at 24 days, the "washington post" reporting today that federal agencies are sharpening their plans before spending cuts, layoffs, fur lows and just general old down sizing. all if president obama fails to strike a deal, which i believe is increasingly likely. let's brung in distinguished fellow at the heritage foundation, form congressman old friend. ernie, i'm not shedding any tears over this. i think these fur lows and layoffs and downsizing is just what they need. >> i understand that the labor department report which came out today shows that 73% of the new jobs created since june are government jobs. we have 20 million people working for government at the federal, state and local level right now. and i can't tell you the exact mix between federal, state, local, but i do know that a huge number of the people who are on t payrolls are actually getting the money for those programs from the federal government. so the federal government should stop subsidizing states and cities and for that matter should not be putting extra burdens upon them with a lot o
to 7.7%. that being shaded on what is going on with decisions by the fiscal cliff. another economic news this morning, a story in the wall street journal looking at general motors. it says -- earlier this year, 675,000 vehicles a in inventory. houston, texas, this is eric. caller: i am if first-time caller. years or 22 years old. i have spent of this entire year try to educate myself a lot more on the whole -- let me get right to the point. i think it should be a state decision. the supreme court should allow the states to make the kind of a decision. giving more people -- in giving more power to the government to regulate this on a national level will create so many issues down the road, and it probably a lot of issues in the immediate -- the reason we even got to this. is because we get some much power to the government to regulate all of the different things and issues. giving them more power is just going to create more problems. my basic thought is, more government power, more issues. host: we will leave it there. victor on the republican line. caller: i do not think the suprem
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5